criminate himself, but tending to establish a civil debt against him. Upon that opinion he might be considered to be bound as if it was unquestionable law; he had given that opinion conscientiously, but to hold him to be bound by it at all events, would be to cast on him a burthen which he ought not to be called upon to bear, for he did not chuse to take upon himself to determine that he was right, on a point which he wished for a further opportunity of considering; for which reason he proposed that the house might have the opinion of the judges upon that question, which opinion might be formed in the course of the recess; for which reason he proposed to put this question to the judges, and moved "that the judges do attend the service of this house to-morrow," which was accordingly ordered, and after the bill had been read a first time, the house adjourned. by the act of the 5th year of his present ma- the house, on the subject of the liability of jesty, chap. 26, was inadequate.--Thirdly, a witness to answer a question not tending to because the vague and loose manner in which the evidence has been conducted of the nature and extent of the supposed injury, or of the proposed compensation, or of the claim of the duke of Atholl, to be considered as the party to whom that compensation should be granted, forms an additional ground for the jealousy which we entertain on the danger of establishing this precedent for opening for re consideration, and at a remote period, contracts between the public and individuals. Fourthly. Because the house having thought proper to reject an amendment proposed in the last clause for the purpose of supplying words evidently omitted by mistake; the act as it now stands enacts a very questionable process, and imposes severe penalties on "the officers of the receipt of his majety's exchequer, who shall refuse or neglect to pay the said annuity, or yearly rent, or sum, or any part thereof, according to the true intent and meaning of this act, or to do any act necessary to enable the said John duke of Atholl, and the heirs general of the 7th earl of Derby." But, inasmuch as the words proposed to be here added, viz. "to receive the same," were injected, this part of the act is absolutely unintelligible, and was admitted by every lord who spoke in the debate to be inexplicable and of no effect. (Signed) Norfolk, E. M. Carysfort. [TROTTER'S INDEMNITY BILL.]-The Lord Chancellor produced a bill which he proposed to be read a first time, for the purpose of obtaining the opinion of the judges on this question, which arose out of the bill of indemnity to those who should give their evidence on the trial of the impeachment of Henry lord viscount Melville, viz. "Whether, by law, a witness can be required to answer a question the answer to which has no tendency to accuse himself, but which may establish, or tend to establish, that he owes a civil debt?" which bill he moved might be now read. The Earl of Carnarvon had no objection to taking the opinion of the judges on this point, as it was desired by the noble and learned lord, but should have been better satisfied if the question had been put upon the bill of Indemnity which came from the commons, and which the house had passed. The Lord Chancellor explained his reason for taking this measure to be this: his opinion had been asked, and he had given it to HOUSE OF COMMONS. Wednesday, July 10. [MINUTES.]-A message from the lords acquainted the house, that their lordships had agreed, without any amendment, to the following bills: The Irish Fire Hearth Duty Regulation bill, the Hop Duty bill, the Irish Paper Duty Regulation bill, the Scotch Assessors' bill, the Irish Customs Regulation bill, the Irish Military Survey bill, the Irish Distillery bill, the Irish Property Exemption bill, the Southern Whale Fishery bill, the Quarantine Indemnity bill, the Sugar Drawback bill, the Linen Drawback bill, the Ballast and Lastage bill, the Ipswich Port Duty bill, and to the Thames Tunnel bill with an amendment, to which they desired the concurrence of the house.-Mr. Bulley, from the Exchequer, presented an account of the amount of the produce of the Permanent Taxes, and of the Consolidated Fund; which was ordered to lie on the table.-Mr. Meux, from the East India House, presented two accounts; one, the expence of building the Cornwallis, of 46 guns, at Bombay; the other, the expence of building the Bombay Frigate, of 32 guns. Ordered to lie on the table.-New Writs were ordered for Wigton, &c. in the room of W. Stewart, esq. who had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds; and for Cockermouth, in the room of J. Graham, esq. who had accepted the stewardship of the Hundred of East Hundred.-Sir A. S. Hamond gave notice, that to-morrow he should move that there be laid before the house the memorial of the commissioners of the navy, in answer mitted to the consideration of the house, whether, if the bill were passed in its present form, an inference would not arise, that an impeachment was abated by a. prorogation or dissolution of parliament, and of course interfere with the privileges of that house. This was a question which he ap prehended was completely determined in the negative, in Mr. Hastings's case, and he was unwilling that this bill should proceed in such a shape, as to raise a doubt on the subject. Its present objectionable form, he observed, was founded upon a precedent that had taken place, previous to the determination he had alluded to. The right hon. gent. concluded with expressing a wish, that the third reading of the bill should be postponed till to-morrow, in order that it should be so altered, as to guard against any improper inference. to the third report of the commissioners of naval enquiry, unless the house would permit him to present it now, which he was prepared to do. Mr. Whitbread having made some observations against the immediate presentment of this memorial, the Speaker interfered, and the notice was ordered to stand for to-morrow.-On the motion of Mr. Long, an humble address was ordered to be presented to his majesty, praying, that he would be graciously pleased to confer some ecclesiastical dignity on the rev. S. Smith, chaplain of the house of commons. An address was likewise ordered to be presented to the king, for an advance of 1,200l. to H. Alexander, esq. for his services as chairman of the committee of Ways and Means. The usual addresses were voted for remuneration to the different clerks and officers of the house. On the motion of Mr. Huskisson, an address was ordered to be presented to his Mr. Whitbread observed that this was a majesty, praying, that he would order. the literal transcript of the bill introduced by sum of 3,250%. Irish currency, to be advanced Mr. Burke, in the case of Mr. Hastings's to the commissioners of the lottery in Ire-impeachment; and the author of that bill land, and to the commissioners on outstand- was certainly not liable to the suspicion of ing prizes. The Speaker then attended in wishing to trench upon, or to excite a doubt the house of lords in consequence of a mes- as to the privileges of that house. The obsage from their lordships; and, on his return, object of this bill the honourable member informed the house, that he had heard the explained to be such, that unless it were royal assent given by commission to a num-adopted, the committee for managing the ber of public and private bills. Impeachment would not be enabled to re[CASE OF CAPTAIN WRIGHT.]-Sirport to the house on the first day of the next Sidney Smith rose and expressed his regret that sessions, it they thought necessary, the result he was not present yesterday, when a right hon. of the evidence they had already examined, friend of his (Mr. Windham) took occasion, but would, on the contrary, be obliged to go in a manner so highly honourable to his through the examination of the same evicharacter, to call the attention of the house dence over again. It was with a view to to the situation of a gallant friend of his, provide against such a circumstance, that he captain Wright, who was now a prison- proposed this bill, which he did not coner in the Temple at Paris. The honourable ceive calculated to cast any doubt upon the officer added, that if the right hon. gent. he privileges of that house, or he should have had alluded to, should not bring forward a been among the last to have brought it formotion on the subject, he would to-morrow ward. From the advanced period of the move, that there should be laid before the session, and the consequent necessity of exhouse copies of the correspondence which pedition, the hon. gent, was desirous that the has taken place, through the Spanish govern-bill should not be delayed in i progress, ment, between our ministers and the govern- but that it should be read a third time ment of France, with respect to the arrest and to day. detention of captain Wright. Mr. S. Bourne concurred in the observa[IMPEACHMENT OF LORD MELVILLE.] tions of the Attorney-general. —Mr. Whitbread brought in a bill to prevent The Speaker observed, that the bill had two the proceedings in the impeachment against distinct objects, first to provide that the prolord Melville, from being affected by any proceedings depending in that house on the arrogation or dissolution of parliament. This ticles of Impeachment against lord Melville bill was read a first and second time, com- should not be discontinued by any prorogamitted, and the report brought up. Upon tion or dissolution of parliament; the second the motion for agreeing to the report, imported a different provision, that the said The Attorney General rose, and after dis-article should be proceeded upon in the next claiming any wish to throw the least impe- session, as to the other house of parliament diment in the way of the Impeachment, sub- in the event of a prorogation or dissolution, in the same manner as if no such prorogation or dissolution_had taken place. A gainst the first part of the bill there did not appear to be any objection, but the second was conceived to cast some doubt upon the established privilege and jurisdiction of that house to continue an impeachment notwithstanding any prorogation or dissolution of parliament. The bill, however, the right hon. gent. had no doubt, would be so modelled as to remove the objectionable part. The bill after being altered, according to the Speaker's suggestion, was engrossed, read a third time, passed, and ordered to the lords. -Adjourned. HOUSE OF LORDS. Thursday, July 11. [MINUTES.] In a committee of privileges, some farther proceedings obtained with respect to the claims to the Zouch peerage; the farther consideration of which was adjourned till the next session.-The bills upon the table, were read a third time and pass ed. The Impeachment Continuation bill, and the Townleian Collection bill also went through their last stages. The opinion of the Judges was delivered in the appeal from the court of Chancery in Ireland, Roe, v. Power; after which the judgment of the court below was affirmed. The judgment in the Appeal, Campbell, v. M'Nair, was sent back to the court of sessions with special instructions. Mr. Whitbread, with several members, brought up a new bill from the commons, in the case of Mr. Trotter and others, the former bill being lost in that house, on account of certain amendments. The bill was read three times and passed.The house went into a committee, to take into consideration the message of the commons, declining to communicate the evidence in the duke of Atholl's bill. Several prece dents were read; after which the Lord Chancellor said, it appeared from these, that it had been the parliamentary practice and usage for the house of commons to communicate evidence to that house, where the facts on which they passed a bill were recited, and stated as the motives of the bill on the face of the bill itself. He should, therefore, to morrow, move that a resolution to that effect be entered on their lordship's jour nals. The report was ordered to be received to-morrow. [TROTTER'S INDEMNITY BILL.]—The judges, pursuant to the order of the house, "being in attendance; The Lord Chancellor quitted the wool-sack, and, in pursuance of what transpired in the discussion of last night, rose for the purpose of submitting an important law proposition to their consideration. He adverted, in the course of his observations, to the several positions which had been advanced; and also to the dictum of a noble and learned lord, respecting the competency of a witness in certain cases to demur; and concluded, as the result of the whole, by submitting a question to the following effect, for the opinion of the law lords :-Whether, in point of law, a witness be compellable to answer questions, the answer to which may not tend to criminate himself, but may establish, or tend to establish, that he owes a debt, for the recovery of which he may be liable to a civil suit." This question was ordered to be referred to the consideration of the learned judges. Lord Minto, introductory to an additional question, which he deemed it proper to refer to the consideration of the judges, repeated several of his observations of last night upon the general subject. He particularly dwelt upon the important distinction between a civil action instituted on the part of the crown, and one instituted by ordinary individuals, as, in the former case, he argued, it was of the nature, and had the effect, of a criminal proceeding: there was, therefore, he contended, a substantial difference between a suit so instituted and a common suit for debt. The query he had to propose was, whether, in point of law, a witness was required to answer questions, the answer to which may not expose him to a criminal prosecution; but, may expose him to a civil suit on the part of his majesty, for the recovery of profits made by him, by the use and application of public monies entrusted to his charge ?" The Lord Chancellor shortly observed, he should make no objection to the motion; at the same time, by his agreeing so far, it did not follow, that his opinions upon the point adverted to were similar to those of the noble lords. The question was then put, and the proposition of lord Minto was, in like manner, referred to the consideration of the judges.-Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, July 11. [MINUTES. A message from the lords. informed the house that their lordships had agreed to the Smuggling Prevention bill, the Privilege bill, the Foreign Plate Glass Duty bill, the British Museum Grant bill, the Duke of Atholl's Compensation bill, and the Con solidated Fund bill, without any amendments; also to the Maidstone Poor bill, the Witnesses Indemnity bill, the Paddington Coal bill, and the Camberwell Water Works bill, with several amendments, in which they desired the concurrence of the house.-The amendment of the lords to the Maidstone Poor bill, to the Paddington Coal bill, and to the Camberwell Water-works bill, were severally taken into consideration, on the motions of sir J. Frederick, Mr. Huskisson, and Mr. Tierney, and appearing to be only in furtherance of the intentions of the house in passing the bills, were agreed to, and the same ordered to be signified to the lords. A new writ was ordered on the motion of Mr. Sturges Bourne, for the election of a Knight of the Shire for the County of Down in Ireland, in the room of the right hon. Viscount Castlereagh, who had accepted the place of one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of Stare. Mr. Long acquainted the house that his majesty had been waited upon with the several addresses voted, and would be graciously pleased to give directions accordingly. Mr. Dent moved, that there be laid before the house an account of all the monies that had been paid to the Sierra Leone Company, pursuant to grants of Parliament, together with the dates of each payment; also an account of the Disbursement of all Sums granted by Parliament to the Sierra Leone Company. Ordered.-Mr. Dent gave notice, that he should, on an early day next session, move for leave to bring in a bill for putting a stop to the horrid practice of Bull-baiting. Mr. Tyrrel, from the Office of the Chamberlain of the City of London, presented at the bar several accounts relative to the Port of London and the different Docks. Ordered to lie on the table.-Mr. C. Wynne moved, that there be laid before the house an Account of the number of Lunatics and Insane Persons confined in the different Jails, Houses of Correction, Poor Houses, and Houses of Industry in England. Ordered.Mr. Kinnaird moved, “that there be laid before the house an account shewing the number of Shipwrights and Apprentices employed in his majesty's Dock Yards on the 17th of May, 1804," together with several other papers, with a view to the discussion on Mr. Jeffery's motion, which were severally ordered. A message from the lords informed the house that their lordships had agreed to the Indemnity bill, and the bill for continuing the proceedings on the impeachment of lord Melville, notwithstanding any prorogation or dissolution of parliament. [KIRK OF SCOTLAND].-Mr. Kinnaird, pursuant to his notice of yesterday, moved that there be laid before the house an account of the Ministers' Stipend of the Kirk of Scotland, specifying the stipend of each Parish, with the augmentations lately made to them. and the state of the Tiends in each; as also an account of the population of each Parish, arranged alphabetically, with other accounts of a similar nature. The Secretary at War wished the hon. gent. had stated some ground for this motion, because, though if upon grounds he did not mean to oppose it, yet it appeared to him to require very good grounds indeed to justify the expence and trouble that the production of such accounts must inevitably create. He did not think that, even on parliamentary grounds, a paper was to be given on the mere motion for it, without adducing any satisfactory reason. Such a proceeding be sides, he was certain, would create a very extraordinary sensation in that part of the country. at Mr. Kinnaird stated, as the object of his motion, certain regulations respecting the Tiends and Stipends applicable to the support of the clergy of Scotland, which were present on a confused system, and not in a fair state of proportion. Had he expected any opposition to the motion, he should not have brought it forward on so short a notice but he did not at all see how the trouble or expence attending the making out of those accounts could be so great as the right hon. gent. wished to represent. That part of the motion that related to the population, it was true, might be attended with some difficulty, and therefore he had no great objections to withdraw that part of his motion. The accounts might be made out during the recess of parliament, and be ready to be presented to the house by the beginning of next session. Mr. R. Dundas thought it would be impracticable for the clergymen to make such returns as these moved for, without a great deal of time and trouble. The discussion of such a subject would give rise to no small degree of alarm in that part of the country, and therefore the hon. gent. should be aware of the grounds of his motion before introducing so delicate a topic. He advised the hon. gent. to take the summer months to consider of it, and to converse on it with people who were well acquainted with the subject.-Mr. Kinnaird, after some observations, withdrew his motion. [TROTTER'S INDEMNITY BILL.]-Mr. Whitbread moved, that the lords amendments to the Indemnity bill be taken into consideration. The Speaker acquainted the house, that numerous amendments had been made by the lords to this bill, many of which amounted | had been unduly obtained, room should be to direct alterations, in a clause containing left open for recovery. The committee approvisions relating to the application of pub-pointed to draw up the Articles of Impeachlic money. These were amendments which ment were originally of opinion that an exthe house never could agree to, and it would emption from criminal prosecution was all be for the hon. member or any other hon. mem- that was necessary to indemnify the witnesses berto dispose of the amendments by the course on this question, and great law authorities usually adopted on such occasions. The had since given it as their opinion, that being amendments were then ordered, on the mo- exposed to a civil process could not justify a tion of Mr. Whitbread, to be taken into fur- demurrer on the part of those witnesses. ther consideration this day three months. That point, however, had been referred in Mr. Whitbread then moved for, and obtain- another place to the twelve judges, and it ed leave to bring in a bill which should in- was therefore premature to take it up before a clude the lords amendments, saving thereby the judgment of such weight as that must necesprivileges of the house.-The bill was brought sarily be, was given. He was not absolutely in by Mr. Whitbread, and read a first and hostile to the motion, but thought it had second time; it then passed through a commit- better not be made in the present circumtee, and was ordered to be engrossed. On stances. the motion that the bill be read a third time, Sir William Elford declared himself to be still of his former opinion respecting the propriety of indemnifying the persons who might give evidence on the impeachment of lord Melville from civil suits. It was material to the ends of justice that their testimony should not be biassed by any apprehensions for the consequences that might result to themselves. It was also material to lord Melville, if he should be acquitted of the crimes imputed to him, that no impression should remain on the public mind, as if the witnesses might not have given full testimony from the in fluence of their personal apprehensions. He hoped and trusted the house would support its own intentions, and direct the Attorney General to stay proceedings in the civil suit against Mr. Trotter; taking it for granted that the house would adopt that course, he should not object to the third reading of the bill. The bill was then read a third time and passed; and Mr. Whitbread was ordered to carry it to the lords. Sir W. Elford then moved, pursuant to his notice of yesterday, that the Attorney General be directed to stay all proceedings of civil suit against Mr. Trotter. This motion being seconded by Mr. R. Dundas, Sir W. Elford moved that the order of the house of the 25th of April, directing the Attorney General to proceed against lord viscount Melville Mr. Trotter, &c. by a civil suit, be read; which being read accordingly, he farther moved that so much of the said order as relates to Mr. Trotter be discharged. Mr. Whitbread was of opinion that the public were entitled to retribution, and as it was well known that Mr. Trotter had gained very considerable emoluments in the public service, should it turn out that those Mr. Kinnaird did not think it fair in the hon. bart. after what he must have heard had been done in another place, to come forward in this manner, and anticipate the decision of the judges, to whom that point had been referred. It had been determined in the other house, that nothing should be done to preclude proper restitution, should it afterwards appear necessary. He did not mean to say that this ought to influence the vote of the house, but certainly it should have great weight with them individually. In regard to the bias mentioned by the hon. bart. as likely to operate on the minds of the witnesses, in case of not receiving complete indemnity, were he to give his opinion freely, he would say that that complete indemnity would have the contrary effect to that suggested by the hon. bart. The Attorney General was of opinion, that instead of adopting this motion, some intermediate measure might be resorted to, such as that of a suspension of all civil proceedings, at least till the next session of parliament. In regard to the high authorities alluded to, so far as he might be supposed to be alluded to, he could only say that he had always given it as his opinion, that the one proceeding could be no legal bar to the other, but at the same time he did not wish to give his opinion what the effect of a civil suit might ultimately be. Mr. C. Wynne approved of the idea suggested by the learned gent. of suspending rather than dropping the proceeding in question, and confessed, that it appeared to him in a different light than if forming a part of the bill to be sent up to the lords. As doubts, however, existed on the subject, he did not think the house could be warranted in rescinding their former vote in the present circumstances. Lord Henry Petty thought the proposition |